I was trying to fool you? I was fooling you because I asked a question about who believes in alien life, and then I drew observations from your answers? That was fooling someone? You mean I might have known from the outset that hypocrisy that everyone of you would believe in alien life but not in a God?

You mean I should have said, I want to know who believes in alien life, but be warned any information you give could be used as evidence about how you think, so careful how you answer!

Maybe I plotted with NASA about the timing of their news release as well. And Frako must be in on it as well, because he introduced the subject! Be careful, you are being watched!! Look out!!!

Many phenomena in the universe are self-ordering. Crystals, for instance, form with no intelligent input whatsoever.

Wait a second there pal, this is where you have gone off the rails.

First, we are talking about likelihood, get it? Just because you can think of one thing that could possibly resemble order that was possibly not intelligently crafted (you do realize that crystal are made of atoms, and predictable molucular structure and they have properties of positive and negative charges and a whole host of other forces which have order aren't you?), and this does nothing to change the bulk of our experience being that order is more likely from intelligence.

But you know what crashfrog, I respond to you occasionally just to hopefully get you to realize how fucking pathetic your arguments, not for the purpose of actually having a prolonged discussion with you, because honestly I find you of very low intelligence, so I find it very unsatisfying to converse with someone that you are guaranteed to not learn or gain any benefit from whatsoever.

Plus not conversing with you is probably much better than constantly telling you to go get screwed.

What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation. First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible? Anything other than your faith?

I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. Trying to make an argument that there is more evidence for alien life than for a force that created the cosmos, that created gravity, and energy, and atomic forces, and heat and cold and thermo dynamics....just is not a very strong argument. In order to believe that you have to believe that all of the forces of the universe just poofed out by arbitrary chaos. That's a big stretch. It is an argument that can only be made by someone who WANTS a particular outcome. Not by anyone who is objectively looking at what we have evidence for. Why is your speculation that it 'must be' valid only in this instance and not in others where it is not convenient.

It is really an indefensible position, but as I said, I can understand where it comes from.

Well, I am pretty agnostic about it I have to say. I can see plenty of evidence for a creating force behind the cosmos, and can see absolutely none for life elsewhere. I don't believe there are tigers living at the bottom of the ocean, just because I have seen tigers elsewhere. I think that is flimsy rationale. Do I think that there are cotton candy machines on Pluto just because there are cotton candy machines here. Nope.

Do I doubt the possibility of life elsewhere. I wouldn't say that. Would it affect my believes in other things. Also no. I guess that is about as agnostic on the subject as it gets.

Do I think that gravity is there just because it happens to be there. Heck no. Not anymore than if I were to suddenly see a great river of peppermint candy come dripping down from the sky in front of my eyes and think, hm, I guess the laws of nature just changed to suddenly include spontaneous rivers of peppermint candy floating in the sky. I don't attribute the cause of anything to nothingness (maybe we should change the wording to the "nothingness of nature", because laws of nature insinuate a set of instructions or rules of which things follow, and nothing doesn't create instructions in my experience) .

–noun1.a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.2.any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.3.the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.

When it me choosing the words I get to decide what their meanings are. In most cases I will use the actual meaning of the word!

So which does the world appear more like to you-order or chaos?

Note: If there are people using the word Lassie to mean the creator of an organized universe, then yes, it is likely* that Lassie exists.

*Likely being determined by our observation of known ordered items, and the experience of them overwhelmingly existing by means of a created process based on intelligent or logical input as opposed to a lack of input or influence.

We can reasonably conclude - not speculate - that water has the same freeze/thaw/evaporate/condense behaviour on other planets as it does on earth. We can similarly conclude that other chemicals, the constituents of life, have the same behaviour on other planets as they do on earth. Hence, it is inevitable that abiogenesis will happen, given the appropriate conditions.

As we can NOT conclude that BY VIRTUE OF water having the same properties in space as on our planet, and that chemicals having the same behavior on other planets as on earth (note: nor can we also conclude that all chemicals have the same behavior on other planets as they do on Earth) abiogenesis will inevitably happen, HENCE it is thoroughly inappropriate to say that "hence abiogenesis will inevitably happen."

It is simply a matter of editorial comment and response that it is perhaps informationally of interest that evolutionists overwhelmingly (overwhelmingly being used in the sense of virtually without exception) believe in the existence of something for which they have zero empirical evidence, while at the same time selectively proclaiming opposition to belief in things for which one does not have empirical evidence.

Crashfrog, Did you stutter or have a brain seizure when you where editing out your quotes? Do you work for Fox news? I am just gong to tell you something right now so you understand it very clear-I think you are a piece of shit. I think you are so utterly dishonest and so void of ethical standards whatsoever that you would virtually fabricate information just so you could seem more believable.

And to set the record straight (which I did to begin with)- not one single evolutionists aside from GDR(who doesn't believe in any reality outside of one's mind) came out against a belief in life on other planets. None you lying scum. Everyone came out with a minimum affirmation of probably.

Now you have the gall to say it was some kind of trap I played? What the heck does that even mean? Are you suggesting that if the question was asked in a different way that the answers would be different-for instance if I said "Do you believe in life on other planets, even without evidence, because I think that is a hypocritical intellectual position?" that maybe the people would answer differently.

Well, I will tell you my take on that, I don't think the answers would have been different from anyone at all, except for probably one exception-YOU. Because you don't have an honest intellectual thought in your vacuous head.

Its a trap! What freaking joke you are. Well, here's a warning for you, whenever you answer something on this forum its a trap! A trap so people can see how utterly mindless and full of shit you are. Keep that in mind the next time you try to falsify information or make another of your boneheaded claims and think no one will call you on it.

Where did I lie? If you are going to make stupid accusations, I believe this forum requires you to back those up with some facts.

Crashfrog clearly distorted the facts by butchering up quotes to make it look as if some evolutionists actually said they don't have a believe in alien life. that is a lie, and now you are repeating it.

Now if you want to say that evidence is on your side, then we have to redefine what evidence means in science I guess then.

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that numbers make your case. Let's look at numbers for a second. In all the time that man has been here, and that there is a written history of the world, have we EVER witnessed life forming from non-life? Even once? How many numbers are on your side?

If its so possible, likely even according to you who claim to be are so discerning, then why do we have no evidence of it ever happening? We never see it. We have never witnessed new life spontaneously forming in our rivers, or in a puddle, or on our kitchen table, heck we haven't even managed to coax it into happening by purposely trying to do so in a laboratory!! Its so easy to happen, its inevitable!

And yet it appears to have only ever happened ONE time in the entire history of the world. So what numbers do you have? How many millions and millions of years has life had for it to happen over and over again? And it never does. Shouldn't we be finding evidence of new life forms appearing all the time? he conditions are right for it, aren't they? We have all the chemicals they need right here don't we? We have all the water they need right? All the ingredients you fools clam virtually guarantees it to happen..many times.

How odd. And how very contradictory to your convenient claims that is is so likely, so possible, so inevitable.